# Do we have time to get paper trails on electronic voting machines before November? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2004, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689 "2004-07-31T02:20:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/21 "2004-08-01T17:09:37Z")
The problem is, only Democrats seem concerned about the possibility of fraud. Republicans are ignoring the issue, or offering apologies in support of the corporations, all of which have significant GOP ties. Basically, they don’t want to upset one of their constituents. Possibly, secretly, they might also think that election fraud with the electronic machines is likely to help the GOP, and so they’re ok with it. It’s bizarre that voting security and its related issues–transparency and verification–have become a _partisan_ issue. _Why are Repubulicans so blase about ensuring secure and fair elections?_ ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/22 "2004-08-01T19:10:21Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > The problem is, only Democrats seem concerned about the possibility of fraud. > > Republicans are ignoring the issue, or offering apologies in support of the corporations, all of which have significant GOP ties. Basically, they don’t want to upset one of their constituents. Possibly, secretly, they might also think that election fraud with the electronic machines is likely to help the GOP, and so they’re ok with it. > > It’s bizarre that voting security and its related issues–transparency and verification–have become a _partisan_ issue. > > _Why are Repubulicans so blase about ensuring secure and fair elections?_ They aren’t. In Florida, they’ve taken decisive action. They’ve told Republican voters to [use a paper ballot.](http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/29/State/GOP_flier_questions_n.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/23 "2004-08-01T20:53:53Z")
Interesting. I wonder if it’s because they’re afraid the electronic results may get trashed (as a result of having been deemed unreliable), but they might somehow manage to retain the absentee results. Then again, it may be some Pub official’s legitimate concern about hacking issues and such. A piece of paper into a slot in a cardboard box. Would that be so hard to put in place by November? ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/24 "2004-08-01T21:13:26Z")
From **laigle** ’s link… > [@](#): > > **The Republican Party of Florida** says… > _\…“The liberal Democrats have already begun their attacks and the new electronic voting machines do not have a paper ballot to verify your vote in case of a recount,” …\_ Sorry if this takes things off into a tangent but… is the mailer trying to imply that the “liberal Democrats” are the ones responsible for the lack of a paper trail? 😕 LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/25 "2004-08-01T21:42:13Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > _Why are Repubulicans so blase about ensuring secure and fair elections?_ Now there’s a straight line if I ever saw one… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/26 "2004-08-01T22:22:36Z")
> [@laigle](#): > > They aren’t. In Florida, they’ve taken decisive action. > > They’ve told Republican voters to [use a paper ballot.](http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/29/State/GOP_flier_questions_n.shtml) Interesting . . . according to this story, there seems to be an internal division – or maybe just plain confusion – within the Florida GOP on this issue: > [@](#): > > The Republican flier is part of a hard-fought GOP primary for a state House seat in Miami where absentee ballots could make a difference. > > \ > > A Bush spokeswoman said the governor had not see the flier beforehand and did not approve of the criticism of the touch screen machines. > > “The governor certainly does not support that message,” said Bush spokeswoman Jill Bratina. “People need to have confidence in these machines.” > > The Republican Party of Florida paid to send the mailing to voters in a House primary in Miami-Dade County, where Rep. Juan-Carlos Zapata, R-Miami, is fighting to win a second term against challenger Frank Artiles in District 119. > > The party supports Zapata in the Aug. 31 primary. > > The full-color mailer says, “Support our Republican Party” and “every vote counts” and shows a smiling President Bush giving a thumbs-up. A tear-off absentee ballot request form, to be mailed to the Republican Party of Florida’s Miami office, shows the president and Zapata side by side. > > Republican Party spokesman Joseph Agostini initially denied that the brochure was the work of the GOP. But after he was shown the flier, he backtracked. He confirmed it was a GOP flier mailed in response to an Artiles flier that used the president’s face without permission. > > Zapata did not return a call seeking comment. > > “It’s an astonishing level of hypocrisy,” said Sharon Lettman-Pacheco of the liberal People for the American Way Foundation, which sued the state seeking to force manual recounts for touch screen machines. “Which one is it: Do the machines work, or do they know something that we don’t?” > > But even as Democrats criticized the message, they realized that Republicans were making the point they have been making for months. > > While not an official party position, some Democrats are urging voters to use absentee ballots instead of the touch screen machines. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/27 "2004-08-02T02:47:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, x, they wouldn’t do it by adding votes but by altering them. Every 20th vote for Kerry is recorded as a vote for Bush. Much easier to get away with. Might already have been done (Georgia in 2002). Right BG, but how is that different than what you could do with an analogue machine?? Again, there isn’t anything new here, or anything that can’t be done already with the existing machines. People have been dinking with the elections as long as there has been a democracy. What we have to hope is that its kept to a minimum, and that both sides are cheating in a minor way…and cancel each other out. I have to think that if there was a MAJOR effort to ‘steal’ the election, it would be fairly easy to expose. I see nothing inherently different about the electronic voting machines except people don’t understand them as well. Can they be subverted? Sure they can. So can the analogue machines. So can paper ballots for that matter. If there is a way to cheat people will find it. HOPEFULLY we will have measure to keep the numbers down to a minimum so that it doesn’t really effect the election process, especially on a national scale. > [@Knorf](#): > > The problem is, only Democrats seem concerned about the possibility of fraud. Because some Democrats are opperating under the delusion that the last election was ‘stolen’ from them. However I know Republicans that are equally worries that the Democrats are going to try and ‘steal’ the election this time. I don’t think that the majority of Democrats REALLY think there is some vast Republican conspiricy to steal the election from them this time. Perhaps I’m wrong about that, but I think the majority of them are rational. Why am I (a non-Republican/non-Democrat) blase about it? Well, I’m pretty impervious to conspiricy theories usually, and I think extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs. I’ve yet to see any. Basically if this was real, I would expect the OFFICIAL Democrat party line to be ‘don’t use them’, and that they would OFFICIALLY be screaming their bloody heads off and there would be some serious investigations going on from the offical Democrat party. Unless you are claiming they are in on it?? Because if this were real, it would be in their best interests to make sure they didn’t get cheated out of the elections. Whats Kerry’s official position on the machines? Again, I’ve heard nothing about him encouraging people not to use them. WHy is that? I know some of you take it as an article of faith that the Republicans are going to cheat you out of the election this time, but so far I’ve seen nothing extraordinary about the level of cheating going on. I take it as an article of faith that both sides will do whatever they can to win, and also that both sides will keep an eye on the other to make sure that nothing too overt happens that robs them of the election. When I see as the official position of either party that they are seriously investigating electronic voting machine fraud as a systematic way to cheat, then I’ll sit up and take a bit more notice of this issue. Until then I’m filing this under the same circular file I reserve for the Kennedy assasination and all the other conspiricy theories floating about… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/28 "2004-08-02T03:02:44Z")
I think this is a big issue. Risks come in from hackers, bugs corrupt vendors, etc. But more importantly, these machines will no doubt undermine confidence in the electoral process, and that’s just what the U.S. doesn’t need for its first presidential election after a very close and divisive one. Even if the machines work perfectly and the votes are counted accurately, if the election is close you just KNOW that accusations of vote fixing will be flying fast and furious. These machines need a paper trail just for that purpose. If the faith in electronics breaks down, we need to be able to go back to the paper record for verification. In fact, I’d go a step further and say that after everyone votes, they are given a unique ID. This ID is attached to their name and address, and in a disputed election an auditor would pull a random sampling of IDs, contact the voters, and verify that they voted as the machine says they did. After you vote, the machine prints out two copies, both of which contain the way you voted, and your ID. You keep one copy, the other you drop in the slot. The ones dropped in the slot go into a secure storage location. The votes can be tallied electronically, and checked with a random audit against the stored paper slips. In the case of a very close and disputed election, the paper slips can be counted. Since they are printed by computer, they can be printed to be machine readable so the count should go very quickly. A very easy way to validate a machine count of paper slips would be to have a machine that sorts the slips into separate bins by party vote. A simple weighing of each bin on an accurate scale would be enough to cross-check the machine counts. Or you could bundle them and measure the bundles. There have to be tons of ways ot prevent fraud while bringing the advantage of computerization to the election system. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/29 "2004-08-02T03:03:12Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Right BG, but how is that different than what you could do with an analogue machine?? Again, there isn’t anything new here, or anything that can’t be done already with the existing machines. People have been dinking with the elections as long as there has been a democracy. What we have to hope is that its kept to a minimum, and that both sides are cheating in a minor way…and cancel each other out. I have to think that if there was a MAJOR effort to ‘steal’ the election, it would be fairly easy to expose. > > I see nothing inherently different about the electronic voting machines except people don’t understand them as well. Can they be subverted? Sure they can. So can the analogue machines. So can paper ballots for that matter. If there is a way to cheat people will find it. HOPEFULLY we will have measure to keep the numbers down to a minimum so that it doesn’t really effect the election process, especially on a national scale. Read the article cited in the OP, and posts in this thread. Everybody who really understands computers (in which company I do not place myself) seems to agree that it is much, much easier to fake results and erase tracks with an electronic system than with any other kind of voting system. > [@xtisme](#): > > Because some Democrats are opperating under the delusion that the last election was ‘stolen’ from them. No, **x,** that is not a delusion. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that the majority of Democrats REALLY think there is some vast Republican conspiricy to steal the election from them this time. Perhaps I’m wrong about that, but I think the majority of them are rational. Yes, you are wrong about that, and Democrats who fear this are perfectly rational. Greg Palast is a very rational man. So are all the other activists (Democrat and otherwise) mentioned in the article cited in the OP, whose websites you can and should visit, and who are demanding the establishment of a verifiable paper trail. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/30 "2004-08-02T03:06:35Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > In fact, I’d go a step further and say that after everyone votes, they are given a unique ID. This ID is attached to their name and address, and in a disputed election an auditor would pull a random sampling of IDs, contact the voters, and verify that they voted as the machine says they did. In general terms, I agree. The challenge is to do this, and still preserve the principle of the secret ballot – which was established to make sure no citizen’s votes could be influenced by threats or bribes. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/31 "2004-08-02T03:31:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Read the article cited in the OP, and posts in this thread. Everybody who really understands computers (in which company I do not place myself) seems to agree that it is much, much easier to fake results and erase tracks with an electronic system than with any other kind of voting system. As neither the article nor anyone else in this thread is intimately familiar with either the code being used or the exact configuration/setup of the infrastructure you can take it all with a grain of salt BG. I gave some pretty basic things that could be done to minimize the chances of hacking the systems (from the outside)…unless these people are clueless idiots that designed the systems, I’m sure they are taking precautions. I’ve seen nothing to indicate they aren’t. So, we are back to conspiricy theories about the manufacturers embedding things in the software or otherwise rigging the results. Again, I’ve seen nothing substantial that indicates this…its all pure speculation. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, x, that is not a delusion. Obviously I disagree. Again, I’ve seen nothing that indicates the election in 2000 was ‘stolen’ from the Democrats. Both parties were scrambling and doing everything they could to get their guy in the white house after an anamoly made it possible for a single state to decide the outcome. We could (and have) go back and forth on this but I remain unconvinced. Again, my thought is, if this is REAL, why isn’t the Democrat PARTY doing something substantial about it, why haven’t THEY level real charges against the Republicans? > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, you are wrong about that, and Democrats who fear this are perfectly rational. Greg Palast is a very rational man. So are all the other activists (Democrat and otherwise) mentioned in the article cited in the OP, whose websites you can and should visit, and who are demanding the establishment of a verifiable paper trail. Whats the offical party line BG? Why aren’t the official party Democrats making such statements, doing offical inquiry’s and making statements about potential fraud? WHy aren’t they offically urging voters to use absentee ballots or otherwise halting the use of these machines?? Wouldn’t it be in their best interests, if they REALLY suspected Republican fraud to ‘steal’ the election, to get this out to the public, to get a hue and cry going? Are they powerless against the Republican onslaught?? If so, then why would the Republicans NEED to rig the election? They are already in control. Sorry, my BS detector kit is ringing bells on this one, and I remain unconvinced. I don’t think the companies who put these systems together are stupid enough to make the hacking of these things easy, nor do I think there is a vast Republican conspiricy to rig the election. If I see some REAL evidence (from unbiased sources), or if I see the official Democrat party making noises about this thing then I’ll re-evaluate and perhaps change my mind. All that said, I think it would be smart in THIS election to not use these machines, as much as I’d like to see us progress to a digital voting and tallying system (I think they will be more accurate in the long run than the BS we have had in the past), for some of the reasons Sam Stone used. Basically the neo-luddites among us, as well as the skitish Democrats would rest easier if we went back to what they know and understand, and for this vital election thats the old clunky machines…or even paper ballots. After this election maybe they can start introducing technology slowly so as not to scare off the electorate. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/32 "2004-08-02T03:37:40Z")
BTW, just to quickly clarify my ‘neo-luddite’ assertion, I was talking about BOTH parties on that, as from laigle’s cite the Republicans are just as skitish about the things…and for probably much the same reason. They don’t understand the things, seems like magic. For all concerned I think it would be best for THIS election if they didn’t use the things and brought out the butterfly ballots…those worked SO well last time. Perhaps they could instead have colored stones in Florida that you can drop into a barrel…black for Bush and white for Kerry. 🙂 THAT would really make the masses feel better I’m sure. They could perhaps tally the votes on clay tablets… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/33 "2004-08-02T04:39:59Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Right BG, but how is that different than what you could do with an analogue machine?? Again, there isn’t anything new here, or anything that can’t be done already with the existing machines. The difference is that mechanical voting machines can be examined by laymen. You can just open up the machine and see that the lever for Bush is, in fact, connected to the counter for Bush. With an electronic machine, there are a number of places where rogue code could alter the counts, and you’d probably need multiple programmers (and possibly electrical engineers) to make sure that all the code is kosher and there are no other programs or circuits interfering. Just looking at the source code isn’t enough, as [Ken Thompson](http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/) proved. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/34 "2004-08-02T04:52:18Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > The difference is that mechanical voting machines can be examined by laymen. You can just open up the machine and see that the lever for Bush is, in fact, connected to the counter for Bush. With an electronic machine, there are a number of places where rogue code could alter the counts, and you’d probably need multiple programmers (and possibly electrical engineers) to make sure that all the code is kosher and there are no other programs or circuits interfering. As I said earlier, its possible to do from the inside…but it would be difficult to do on one’s own and make it transparent and undetectable. I also conceed that electronic voting machines are more complex beasts than the old analogue machines, so take experts to oversee them as opposed to your ‘laymen’. The very complexity would make them more difficult to verify…but not impossible. I think the trade offs for more potential accuracy and swifter reporting outweigh the extra effort it would take to verify that the machines were opperating as expected though…but thats just my own opinion. I hate the thought of the US continueing to use machines from the turn of the last century in the digital age. > [@Mr2001](#): > > Just looking at the source code isn’t enough, as Ken Thompson proved. Again, its do-able, but I think that altering the election would be a bit more difficult to do transparently and undetectably than the coding problem in the article. Impossible? No…but more difficult. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/35 "2004-08-02T10:54:35Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > As I said earlier, its possible to do from the inside…but it would be difficult to do on one’s own and make it transparent and undetectable. I’m not really worried about individual hackers breaking into voting machines. I’m worried about the possibility that a lot of people might conspire to rig the voting process. > [@](#): > > I also conceed that electronic voting machines are more complex beasts than the old analogue machines, so take experts to oversee them as opposed to your ‘laymen’. The very complexity would make them more difficult to verify…but not impossible. It may not be impossible, but it’d be prohibitively expensive to examine every bit of code and every circuit on every voting machine. That’s the problem. It’s reasonable to thoroughly inspect every mechanical voting machine, but it’s unreasonable to expect that every electronic machine will be checked as thoroughly. As a voter, I don’t think the benefits of electronic voting outweigh the security issues. Knowing the result a day sooner doesn’t mean much if I can’t trust the result. > [@](#): > > I hate the thought of the US continueing to use machines from the turn of the last century in the digital age. The technology for electronic voting machines has been out there for decades. If the rest of the world is still using paper ballots, don’t you think they might have a good reason? 😉 > [@](#): > > Again, its do-able, but I think that altering the election would be a bit more difficult to do transparently and undetectably than the coding problem in the article. Impossible? No…but more difficult. Only slightly more difficult. Ken Thompson’s back door worked because no one thought to check the binary code of the compiler. An insider attacking a voting machine only has to alter some component that no one will have time to check. An attacker only has to target one part of the machine, but an inspector has to thoroughly check _every_ part. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/36 "2004-08-02T12:56:58Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > It may not be impossible, but it’d be prohibitively expensive to examine every bit of code and every circuit on every voting machine. > > That’s the problem. It’s reasonable to thoroughly inspect every mechanical voting machine, but it’s unreasonable to expect that every electronic machine will be checked as thoroughly. > > As a voter, I don’t think the benefits of electronic voting outweigh the security issues. Knowing the result a day sooner doesn’t mean much if I can’t trust the result… Wouldn’t this be like a virus scan? If you had the pattern of the original code, I’d think it wouldn’t be THAT hard to scan the code (firmware or software) to see if it had been changed. Also, do you know for a fact that the software is directly changable? Could the machine manufacturers be using ROM burned in? This would make upgrading a physical replacement process but eliminate the ability to do what you are suggesting. Again, I don’t know if they are doing this, but it IS possible to eliminate this threat (that is, eliminate the threat of an OUTSIDE party or parties hacking your system). > [@Mr2001](#): > > The technology for electronic voting machines has been out there for decades. If the rest of the world is still using paper ballots, don’t you think they might have a good reason? Because the ‘rest of the world’ has no immunity from being neo-luddites also?? 🙂 I’m not sure that there is a good reason ‘the rest of the world’ is not using electronic voting machines…or that the US has to follow this lead. I’m pretty sure that a reasonably safe and secure electronic voting system could be created. Whether or not THIS voting system meets that criteria I don’t really know as I don’t really know all the relevant details on its security, structure or setup and deployment. I have to assume that the designers would have thought of all the things we have…they aren’t stupid. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/37 "2004-08-02T13:20:12Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Wouldn’t this be like a virus scan? If you had the pattern of the original code, I’d think it wouldn’t be THAT hard to scan the code (firmware or software) to see if it had been changed. Sure… if you have a device that can read the code off of a ROM chip and compare it. Is there going to be one at every polling station, along with the tools and expertise to open the machine and get at the right chips? > [@](#): > > Also, do you know for a fact that the software is directly changable? Could the machine manufacturers be using ROM burned in? ROM can be replaced in a few minutes, with inexpensive tools. But even if you make sure a third party can’t replace the chip with his own, what’s stopping a crooked manufacturer from running off a few units with different ROM? Or a different hard drive controller, or memory controller? > [@](#): > > Again, I don’t know if they are doing this, but it IS possible to eliminate this threat (that is, eliminate the threat of an OUTSIDE party or parties hacking your system). That’s not the important threat. > [@](#): > > Because the ‘rest of the world’ has no immunity from being neo-luddites also?? But what reason is there to switch from a system that works to a question mark that adds no real value? Voting is too important to overhaul just for the sake of cutting-edginess; if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. > [@](#): > > I’m pretty sure that a reasonably safe and secure electronic voting system could be created. Whether or not THIS voting system meets that criteria I don’t really know as I don’t really know all the relevant details on its security, structure or setup and deployment. And there’s another problem with electronic voting machines - no one knows all the relevant details except the designers of each component that makes up the system. On the other hand, it’s easy to learn all there is to know about paper ballots or mechanical voting machines. > [@](#): > > I have to assume that the designers would have thought of all the things we have…they aren’t stupid. This wouldn’t be the first time a company has withheld knowledge of its products’ shortcomings. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/38 "2004-08-02T17:35:22Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > This wouldn’t be the first time a company has withheld knowledge of its products’ shortcomings. It also assumes that the person within the company responsible for verifying the integrity of the system _wants_ a system with integrity. That’s a pretty large assumption. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/39 "2004-08-02T18:09:24Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Why am I (a non-Republican/non-Democrat) blase about it? Well, I’m pretty impervious to conspiricy theories usually, and I think extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs. [Deibold election machines in Dallas County, Texas, register straight-party votes marked for Democrats as straight-party votes for Republicans.](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/23/170304.shtml) A recount was impossible because there was no paper trail, so the “error,” if it was an error, was corrected, presumably, and the misregistered votes were included in the final vote totals. People were disenfranchised – no, worse, they were defauded into voting against the candidates of their choice. Of course, Deibold is the company whose CEO is a brazenly partisan Republican. How could this possibly be acceptable to anyone who even gives a half a damn about fair elections? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689/40 "2004-08-31T03:55:28Z")
Update: From _In These Times,_ August 24, 2004, “Sum of a Glitch: Evidence shows that machines might be the real swing voters this November,” article by Bev Harris, [http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/sum\_of\_a\_glitch/:](http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/sum_of_a_glitch/:) > [@](#): > > When I began researching this story in October 2002, the media was reporting that electronic voting machines are fun and speedy, but I looked in vain for articles reporting that they are accurate. I discovered four magic words, “voting machines and glitch,” which, when entered into a search engine, yielded a shocking result: A staggering pile of miscounts was accumulating. These were reported locally but had never been compiled in a single place, so reporters were missing a disturbing pattern. > > I published a compendium of 56 documented cases in which voting machines got it wrong. > > How do voting-machine makers respond to these reports? With shrugs. They indicate that their miscounts are nothing to be concerned about. One of their favorite phrases is: “It didn’t change the result.” > > Except, of course, when it did: > > In the 2002 general election, a computer miscount overturned the House District 11 result in Wayne County, North Carolina. Incorrect programming caused machines to skip several thousand party-line votes, both Republican and Democratic. Fixing the error turned up 5,500 more votes and reversed the election for state representative. > > This crushing defeat never happened: Voting machines failed to tally “yes” votes on the 2002 school bond issue in Gretna, Nebraska. This error gave the false impression that the measure had failed miserably, but it actually passed by a 2-to-1 margin. Responsibility for the errors was attributed to ES&S, the Omaha company that had provided the ballots and the machines. > > According to the Chicago Tribune, “It was like being queen for a day—but only for 12 hours,” said Richard Miholic, a losing Republican candidate for alderman in 2003 who was told that he had won a Lake County, Illinois, primary election. He was among 15 people in four races affected by an ES&S vote-counting foul-up. > > An Orange County, California, election computer made a 100 percent error during the April 1998 school bond referendum. The Registrar of Voters Office initially announced that the bond issue had lost by a wide margin; in fact, it was supported by a majority of the ballots cast. The error was attributed to a programmer’s reversing the “yes” and “no” answers in the software used to count the votes. > > A computer program that was specially enhanced to speed the November 1993 Kane County, Illinois, election results to a waiting public did just that—unfortunately, it sped the wrong data. Voting totals for a dozen Illinois races were incomplete, and in one case they suggested that a local referendum proposal had lost when it actually had been approved. For some reason, software that had worked earlier without a hitch had waited until election night to omit eight precincts in the tally. > > A squeaker—no, a landslide—oops, we reversed the totals—and about those absentee votes, make that 72-19, not 44-47. Software programming errors, sorry. Oh, and reverse that election, we announced the wrong winner. In the 2002 Clay County, Kansas, commissioner primary, voting machines said Jerry Mayo ran a close race but lost, garnering 48 percent of the vote, but a hand recount revealed Mayo had won by a landslide, receiving 76 percent of the vote. > > The excuses given for these miscounts are just as flawed as the election results themselves. Vendors have learned that reporters and election workers will believe pretty much anything, as long as it sounds high-tech. They blame incorrect vote counts on “a bad chip” or “a faulty memory card,” but defective chips and bad memory cards have very different symptoms. They don’t function at all, or they spit out nonsensical data. > > In the November 2002 general election in Scurry County, Texas, poll workers got suspicious about a landslide victory for two Republican commissioner candidates. Told that a “bad chip” was to blame, they had a new computer chip flown in and also counted the votes by hand—and found that Democrats actually had won by wide margins, overturning the election. > > \ > > According to the Wall Street Journal, in the 2000 general election an optical-scan machine in Allamakee County, Iowa, was fed 300 ballots and reported 4 million votes. The county auditor tried the machine again but got the same result. Eventually, the machine’s manufacturer, ES&S, agreed to have replacement equipment sent. Republicans had hoped that the tiny but heavily Republican county would tip the scales in George W. Bush’s favor, but tipping it by almost 4 million votes attracted national attention. > > November, 2003: Officials from Boone County, Indiana, wanted to know why their MicroVote machines counted 144,000 votes cast when only 5,352 existed. > > Better than a pregnant chad—these machines can actually give birth. > > In the 1996 McLennan County, Texas, Republican primary runoff, one precinct tallied about 800 votes, although only 500 ballots had been ordered. > > “We don’t think it’s serious enough to throw out the election,” said county Republican Party Chairman M.A. Taylor. Error size: 60 percent. > > Here’s a scorching little 66 percent error rate: Eight hundred and twenty-six votes in one Tucson, Arizona-area precinct simply evaporated, remaining unaccounted for a month after the 1994 general election. No recount appears to have been done, even though two-thirds of voters did not get their votes counted. Election officials said the vanishing votes were the result of a faulty computer program. Apparently, the software programming error and the person who caused it are still at large. > > \ > > Dallas, Texas A software programming error caused Dallas County, Texas’ new, $3.8 million high-tech ballot system to miss 41,015 votes during the November 1998 election. The system refused to count votes from 98 precincts, telling itself they had already been counted. Operators and election officials didn’t realize they had a problem until after they’d released “final” totals that omitted one in eight votes. > > In one of the nonsensical answers that we hear so often from vendors, ES&S assured us that votes were never lost, just uncounted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-time-to-get-paper-trails-on-electronic-voting-machines-before-november/257689.md?page=3)